Paul Craney, the executive director of the D.C. Republican Committee, got quite the surprise when he came into the office today — someone had shot out the windows of the party’s headquarters at 1275 K Street NW with what appeared to be small caliber pellets.

“All I can say is that whoever did it either is targeting glass windows or the D.C. Republican Committee,” said Craney in an email this afternoon. Craney told us that the damage occurred around 1:30 a.m. last night, when the building’s security company left him a message about a glass break — but he didn’t notice the damage until he went and got lunch today, at which point he tweeted about it. Craney said that the headquarters’ neighbors were not hit by any of the projectiles.

Police were contacted by the building’s landlord and the incident is under investigation.

I am so glad that I moved to Washington, D.C. two weeks ago, because it appears we Republicans are being hunted around here, haha.

As Jonah Goldberg – from The National Review – pointed out: If it had been the DNC office that would prove the tea parties are [fill in the blank].”

If the federal government can force someone to purchase health insurance based solely on citizenship and on being alive, then why can’t state lawmakers force their citizens to purchase a firearm?

Well, that’s the reasoning behind a new bill being introduced in South Dakota. ArgusLeader.com reports:

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

Although these lawmakers are only proposing this bill to make a point about health care, they do have a case to be made. As I stated above, if the government can force us to buy a product or service, such as a health insurance policy, what is to stop politicians from forcing us to buy a gun?

Also, I have noticed other blogs worry about the strategy of bringing guns and the 2nd Amendment into the Obamacare discussion, but I don’t think the panic is necessary. Is it possible these lawmakers are bringing up the “guns-for-everybody” argument, because it is something that scares liberals just as much as socialized health care scares conservatives?